Service Providers, Remix Artists, Filmmakers, and Public Interest Groups Support EFF in Dancing Baby Case

In Lenz v. Universal Music Group – aka the dancing baby case – EFF and co-counsel Keker & Van Nest, LLP have waged a long battle on behalf of homemaker Stephanie Lenz to ensure that Internet users have protection from unfounded claims of copyright infringement. Today, a broad array of third parties joined the fray, and we couldn’t be more pleased to have their support.

In case you haven’t been following the latest, the case is now on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. A variety of issues have been raised, but the key questions are whether a content owner has to form a good faith belief that a use is not a fair use before sending a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA); whether that belief as to the law has to be reasonable; and the kinds of damages that are available if the sender fails to do so. We filed our opening brief on these issues last week.

Both briefs explain that unfounded allegations of copyright infringement have real and dangerous consequence for fair use and lawful speech. Pointing to numerous specific examples, they document persistent abuse of the notice and takedown process. These examples include:

Major networks sending takedowns targeting McCain-Palin campaign videos (that made clear fair use of news excepts) just weeks before the presidential election

A medical training service that forged customer testimonials sending a takedown targeting screenshots that exposed the scam

A manufacturer of electronic voting machines sending takedown notices to suppress criticism of the machines.

These improper takedowns, the amici stress, impose a variety of burdens on services providers, remix artists, and rights-holders as well. For example, ordinary bloggers, vidders, and other artists don’t have easy access to lawyers to help them get their content restored, much less hold a rightsholder accountable for taking it down in the first place.

Both also explain that DMCA, properly interpreted, is designed to deter this abuse of the notice-and-takedown system. In particular, they note, the statute requires the sender of a takedown notice to affirm that the use is not “authorized by law.” They argue, as we did, that “authorized by law” must be intended to include “authorized by the fair use doctrine.”

Universal Music and groups supporting it (including the MPAA and the RIAA) insist that it’s too hard for them to consider fair use before sending a takedown notice. They argue that because some fair use determinations are challenging, they should never be required to include a fair use consideration in their takedown procedures.. The consequences of this position are startling: copyright owners could takedown unquestioned fair uses – like product reviews, mash-ups, or academic lectures – without facing any consequences.

The brief submitted by OTW, PK, and IDA explains that, despite Universal’s insistence that fair use is just too hard, there are many straightforward cases. In fact, there are literally millions of easily identifiable examples of fair use (e.g. quotations in book reviews, academic criticism, and clips used for parody). And courts have frequentlyfound fair use defenses to be obviously valid.

The OSPs agree, and also explain that the DMCA not only requires rightsholders to consider whether a use is fair, it also requires rightsholders to form legally reasonable beliefs based on that consideration. Universal insists that as long as a copyright owner subjectively believes the use in infringing, that is enough. The OSPs respond:

Such an interpretation would lead to the illogical result that the more objectively unreasonable a copyright holder is, the more legal leeway it has to send unfounded notices.

Congress did not intend, and the law does not support, such an absurd result.

Finally, the OSPs urge that attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing a claim should be available to a prevailing party under that DMCA. This result is clearly supported by the statute, which provides that a victim of misrepresentation is entitled to “any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees.”

Taken together, these briefs help explain the real stakes of this case. We appreciate the support and hope the Ninth Circuit will take heed.

Related Updates

The U.S. Senate is about to vote on a bill that would be disastrous for online speech and communities. The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865) might sound appealing, but it would do nothing to fight sex traffickers. What it would do...

People in marginalized communities who are targets of persecution and violence—from the Rohingya in Burma to Native Americans in North Dakota—are using social media to tell their stories, but finding that their voices are being silenced online. This is the tragic and unjust consequence of content moderation policies...

It’s no secret: Social media has changed the way that we access news. According to the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of Americans report getting at least some of their news on social media. Another study suggests that globally, for those under 45, online news is now as important...

In a victory for journalism and fair use, Playboy Entertainment has given up on its lawsuit against Happy Mutants, LLC, the company behind Boing Boing. Earlier this month, a federal court dismissed Playboy’s claims but gave Playboy permission to try again with a new complaint, if it...

More than 15 state legislatures are considering the “Human Trafficking Prevention Act” (HTPA). But don’t let the name fool you: this bill would do nothing to address human trafficking. Instead, it would only threaten your free speech and privacy in a misguided attempt to block and tax online pornography...

Frankenstein Bill Combines the Worst of SESTA and FOSTA. Tell Your Representative to Reject New Version of H.R. 1865. The House of Representatives is about to vote on a bill that would force online platforms to censor their users. The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act...

In a win for free expression, a court has dismissed a copyright lawsuit against Happy Mutants, LLC, the company behind acclaimed website Boing Boing. The court ruled [PDF] that Playboy’s complaint—which accused Boing Boing of copyright infringement for linking to a collection of centerfolds—had not sufficiently established...

In a country where press freedom is already under grave threat, the revocation of an independent publication’s license to operate and a proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights are pushing journalists further into the margins. While the Constitution of the Philippines guarantees press freedom and the country’s media landscape...

A huge range of expressive works—including books, documentaries, televisions shows, and songs—depict real people. Should celebrities have a veto right over speech that happens to be about them? A case currently before the California Court of Appeal raises this question. In this case, actor Olivia de Havilland has sued...